Originally Posted by Wally Bird
I'm not surprised the LEOs think it 'fantastic' - gives them the ability to get in your face without even a token nod to PC. A competent terrorist/hijacker isn't going to look "suspicious" in the first place anyway, witness the tape of Atta going through security.
Well, for LY this type of risk-analysis works beautifully. After all, not too many LY planes have been flown into 100-story buildings/hijacked/etc. In fact, after the LY hijacking in the '60s and the implementation of LY's security procedures, there have been no successful hijackings/bombings.
You may have wanted to say that "this type of security is necessary for a state such as Israel, however it would not be feasible in the USA." On 9/11, LY's security system would have caught the individuals. The only way it could be implemented though would be to profile passengers. Something I personally agree with, as 90 year-olds and 10 year-olds are not exactly the terrorist type. But the ACLU would have a field day if those who fit terrorist profiles were actually profiled. Personally I say **** PC. But then again, I don't fancy making it any easier for terrorists to strike.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I've toyed with El Al "questioning" in BOM and TLV but apparently they didn't catch on. Then again, maybe they thought I was boring.
They probably did... and in the future I would not "toy" with them (lest getting an op-up will be the least of your problems)
Originally Posted by alanR
I'd assume the interviewer had made a mistake & meant to say "friends", so would reply as if they'd said "friends". Guess I'll be off to Gitmo
A
slight overreaction?
